(CN) - Environmental groups on Thursday asked the 9th Circuit to reinstate the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf on the Endangered Species List.
Last week, a Montana federal judge upheld the constitutionality of a Department of Defense budget rider, which directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf, a species that roams the northern Rocky Mountains through Montana, Idaho, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington and northern Utah.
"Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains should be managed by science, not political meddling by Congress," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director with the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "This appeal is aimed at restoring needed protections for wolves in these states. Although numbers have risen, the job of wolf recovery is far from complete."
Since the ruling, a number of states have set new hunting quotas for wolves, according to appeal filed by the center, Cascadia Wildlands in Eugene, Ore., and the Western Watersheds Project.
Fish and Wildlife issued a final rule to remove the species from the list in 2009, but a federal judge found that the rule violated the Endangered Species Act by protecting a listed species only across part of its range. The court vacated the rule and the wolves remained protected until the passage of an appropriations bill by Congress this past April. A rider to that bill, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama, directed Fish and Wildlife to reissue the 2009 rule.
"The wolf rider is a clear example of overreaching by Congress that resulted in the wrongful removal of protections for wolves," Cascadia Wildlands campaign director Josh Laughlin said in a statement. "The rider is not only a disaster for wolves but for any endangered species that a politician doesn't like. Congress has set a terrible precedent that we hope to overturn."
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula also decried the rider in his Aug. 3 ruling as a "tearing away, an undermining, and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law."
Nonetheless, Molloy determined that he was bound by precedent to uphold the congressional delisting, no matter how much he disagreed with it. Full story
Showing posts with label delisting wolves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delisting wolves. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Lummis clause preventing wolf lawsuits survives challenge
By JEREMY PELZER Casper Star-Tribune The Billings Gazette
Thursday, July 28, 2011. CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A proposed ban on lawsuits against an impending Wyoming wolf management deal survived a legislative challenge in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday.
House members voted 250-174 to keep a rider in a 2012 Interior appropriations bill that would prevent any litigation against a potentially imminent agreement between Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would put the state’s roughly 340 wolves under state control.
Earlier this month, Gov. Matt Mead and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said they hoped to reach an agreement by the end of July that would remove Wyoming wolves from the federal endangered-species list and allow unregulated killing of the animals in all but the northwestern part of the state.
Mead and other state officials have repeatedly said that a congressional “no-litigation” clause is vital to protect any agreement reached from lawsuits by environmental groups and others.
The rider, inserted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., would also put Wyoming wolves directly under state control as soon as a deal is reached.
Lummis’ budget rider was unsuccessfully challenged by an amendment from U.S. Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., as 24 Democrats joined 226 Republicans in voting to keep the language in the bill.
Congressional observers have said that they expect Lummis’ wolf rider to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. However, they’re uncertain how the proposal will fare in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Salazar also spoke out against Lummis’ rider earlier this month.
In April, Montana’s two U.S. senators successfully passed a budget rider delisting wolves in five other Western states, along with a no-litigation clause.
Thursday, July 28, 2011. CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A proposed ban on lawsuits against an impending Wyoming wolf management deal survived a legislative challenge in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday.
House members voted 250-174 to keep a rider in a 2012 Interior appropriations bill that would prevent any litigation against a potentially imminent agreement between Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would put the state’s roughly 340 wolves under state control.
Earlier this month, Gov. Matt Mead and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said they hoped to reach an agreement by the end of July that would remove Wyoming wolves from the federal endangered-species list and allow unregulated killing of the animals in all but the northwestern part of the state.
Mead and other state officials have repeatedly said that a congressional “no-litigation” clause is vital to protect any agreement reached from lawsuits by environmental groups and others.
The rider, inserted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., would also put Wyoming wolves directly under state control as soon as a deal is reached.
Lummis’ budget rider was unsuccessfully challenged by an amendment from U.S. Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., as 24 Democrats joined 226 Republicans in voting to keep the language in the bill.
Congressional observers have said that they expect Lummis’ wolf rider to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. However, they’re uncertain how the proposal will fare in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Salazar also spoke out against Lummis’ rider earlier this month.
In April, Montana’s two U.S. senators successfully passed a budget rider delisting wolves in five other Western states, along with a no-litigation clause.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
U.S. proposes removing protection for wolves in Wisconsin
Fish and Wildlife Service says population has recovered in state
By Paul A. Smith and Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel
April 16, 2011. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Friday to remove federal protections for the gray wolf in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
The agency also said new studies show wolves in the Midwest are distinct from wolves in the eastern United States and eastern Canada.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said wolf populations in the Midwest had met recovery goals and no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Delisting would allow Wisconsin to enact a state-approved management plan for wolves, which would allow for the killing of wolves that have been shown to kill or harass livestock and pets.
Wolves have increasingly become a point of controversy, with some landowners in the north saying that higher populations have harmed livestock and pets.
The state Department of Natural Resources and many conservation organizations, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, support the delisting, while some wildlife groups oppose dropping the protections.
The proposal allows for 60 days of public comment.
This is the third time that steps have been taken to allow Wisconsin to reduce protections for the wolf. Since 2007, the wolf has been declassified from its endangered status for a total of 21 months.
But animal rights groups have protested the actions, and twice have persuaded federal courts to return protections.
This time, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that recent genetic studies show that the gray wolf, Canis lupus, is genetically distinct from eastern wolves, Canis lycaon.
Wildlife groups had been wary about lifting protections on the gray wolf, fearing it would harm their potential revival in the eastern U.S.
The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz., said the government's announcement was premature.
"Gray wolves remain absent from 95 percent of their former range, and yet the service is eager to declare them recovered," Collette Adkins Giese, an attorney for the organization, said in a statement.
"Instead of pandering to the minority who want to kill wolves, the service should use its legal authority to chart a new course that focuses on national wolf recovery, including recovery for the newly recognized eastern wolf."
The western Great Lakes' wolf population is estimated at more than 4,000 animals, including 2,922 in Minnesota, 557 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and 690 in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has monitored the state's wolf population for 30 years. The state's population is now well above the 1999 management goal of 350.
In statements, Gov. Scott Walker and DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp applauded the proposal.
Walker said it would help "untie our hands so we can start rebuilding public confidence in the state and federal efforts toward wolf conservation and wildlife management."
By Paul A. Smith and Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel
April 16, 2011. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Friday to remove federal protections for the gray wolf in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
The agency also said new studies show wolves in the Midwest are distinct from wolves in the eastern United States and eastern Canada.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said wolf populations in the Midwest had met recovery goals and no longer need protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Delisting would allow Wisconsin to enact a state-approved management plan for wolves, which would allow for the killing of wolves that have been shown to kill or harass livestock and pets.
Wolves have increasingly become a point of controversy, with some landowners in the north saying that higher populations have harmed livestock and pets.
The state Department of Natural Resources and many conservation organizations, including the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, support the delisting, while some wildlife groups oppose dropping the protections.
The proposal allows for 60 days of public comment.
This is the third time that steps have been taken to allow Wisconsin to reduce protections for the wolf. Since 2007, the wolf has been declassified from its endangered status for a total of 21 months.
But animal rights groups have protested the actions, and twice have persuaded federal courts to return protections.
This time, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that recent genetic studies show that the gray wolf, Canis lupus, is genetically distinct from eastern wolves, Canis lycaon.
Wildlife groups had been wary about lifting protections on the gray wolf, fearing it would harm their potential revival in the eastern U.S.
The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz., said the government's announcement was premature.
"Gray wolves remain absent from 95 percent of their former range, and yet the service is eager to declare them recovered," Collette Adkins Giese, an attorney for the organization, said in a statement.
"Instead of pandering to the minority who want to kill wolves, the service should use its legal authority to chart a new course that focuses on national wolf recovery, including recovery for the newly recognized eastern wolf."
The western Great Lakes' wolf population is estimated at more than 4,000 animals, including 2,922 in Minnesota, 557 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and 690 in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has monitored the state's wolf population for 30 years. The state's population is now well above the 1999 management goal of 350.
In statements, Gov. Scott Walker and DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp applauded the proposal.
Walker said it would help "untie our hands so we can start rebuilding public confidence in the state and federal efforts toward wolf conservation and wildlife management."
Friday, January 14, 2011
We Are All Funding Anti-Hunting Groups
At the recent Summit of the Horse, Karen Budd-Falen, a property-rights attorney from Wyoming gave an incredible talk on the billions of dollars extremist environmental groups receive each year from the federal government as reimbursement of legal fees. David Hart sums this up in an excellent article posted on American Hunter
1/12/2011
How would you like to make a donation to the anti-hunting movement? You wouldn’t, of course, but like it or not, you already have. In 2007, for example, $280,000 of your tax dollars went directly to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)—the nation’s preeminent anti-hunting group—after HSUS successfully stopped the delisting of wolves from the Endangered Species Act in Minnesota.
Yes, your tax money is going straight to anti-hunting groups that file lawsuits to end legal hunting opportunities. If that’s not enough, taxpayers gave more than $436,000 to anti-hunting groups for blocking wolf management in the northern Rockies. All told, 13 environmental and anti-hunting groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, sued the federal government 1,159 times in the last 10 years and were reimbursed an estimated $34 million in legal fees from the federal government. Many of those suits had a direct impact on your freedom to hunt.
“It’s the best-kept secret in the environmental community,” says Boone and Crockett Club president Lowell Baier.
Here’s how it works: Two sources of federal money provide reimbursement for legal fees for any individual or organization that files a lawsuit against the federal government and wins. One, called the Judgment Fund, is a congressional line-item appropriation used solely for cases related to the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, among others.
Karen Budd-Falen, a property-rights attorney from Wyoming who has tracked the rising tide of enviro-litigation, discovered that over $1 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund went out in just the first half of 2007 alone. Not all of it went to environmental groups, but plenty did.
“It’s hard to tell because the federal government is not required to track individual payments,” she says.
The second method is through the Equal Access to Justice Act, which was aimed at helping individuals and small businesses take on the federal government. The EAJA prohibits reimbursement to for-profit corporations worth more than $7 million; however, non-profit groups are exempt. It’s not as though the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which filed at least 409 lawsuits and 165 appeals in federal courts in the last 10 years, needs the money. They claimed a net income of $9 million and net assets of more than $6 million in 2008. Defenders of Wildlife raked in $30.7 million from members’ donations, from reimbursed legal fees and from other sources in 2008. HSUS then had about $162 million in net assets; nevertheless, HSUS received nearly $1.5 million from the federal government for 15 legal cases.
Look at the staffs of these various groups and it’s clear that they’ve mastered the system. The CBD has at least 20 attorneys on staff—about a third of their entire employee roster. Defenders also has a lawyer-heavy staff. Moreover, the EAJA limits attorney fees to $250 per hour, but Budd-Falen says some cases are reimbursed at up to $650 per hour per lawyer.
The catch is that many of these suits are based on technicalities, such as the federal government’s failure to meet a strict filing deadline or to follow a specific—and often unnecessary—procedure. Not surprisingly, the suits have little or nothing to do with actually preserving wildlife or habitat.“Environmental litigation is a big, profitable business, pure and simple,” says Budd-Falen. She says these groups block access to public land and prevent sound timber management on public land in the name of protecting endangered species.
Speaking to a reporter for High Country News in 2009, CBD founder Kieran Suckling said, “At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.
“New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very under-appreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.”
Many of the suits center on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) failure to respond to an endangered species petition in a “timely manner.” That’s one reason groups like the CBD flood the USFWS with endangered-species-listing petitions. Last April, the CBD filed a bulk petition requesting the USFWS to review 404 species from the southeastern United States. WildEarth Guardians submitted two petitions—one seeking protection for 475 plants and animals and another naming 681 species. The USFWS has 90 days to consider each animal listed in the petition and a year to make a final determination to list the species it deems to be endangered or threatened. It’s all but impossible to make those deadlines when the system is overwhelmed, says Budd-Falen, but that’s exactly why these groups file bulk petitions.
Story at link
1/12/2011
How would you like to make a donation to the anti-hunting movement? You wouldn’t, of course, but like it or not, you already have. In 2007, for example, $280,000 of your tax dollars went directly to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)—the nation’s preeminent anti-hunting group—after HSUS successfully stopped the delisting of wolves from the Endangered Species Act in Minnesota.
Yes, your tax money is going straight to anti-hunting groups that file lawsuits to end legal hunting opportunities. If that’s not enough, taxpayers gave more than $436,000 to anti-hunting groups for blocking wolf management in the northern Rockies. All told, 13 environmental and anti-hunting groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, sued the federal government 1,159 times in the last 10 years and were reimbursed an estimated $34 million in legal fees from the federal government. Many of those suits had a direct impact on your freedom to hunt.
“It’s the best-kept secret in the environmental community,” says Boone and Crockett Club president Lowell Baier.
Here’s how it works: Two sources of federal money provide reimbursement for legal fees for any individual or organization that files a lawsuit against the federal government and wins. One, called the Judgment Fund, is a congressional line-item appropriation used solely for cases related to the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, among others.
Karen Budd-Falen, a property-rights attorney from Wyoming who has tracked the rising tide of enviro-litigation, discovered that over $1 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund went out in just the first half of 2007 alone. Not all of it went to environmental groups, but plenty did.
“It’s hard to tell because the federal government is not required to track individual payments,” she says.
The second method is through the Equal Access to Justice Act, which was aimed at helping individuals and small businesses take on the federal government. The EAJA prohibits reimbursement to for-profit corporations worth more than $7 million; however, non-profit groups are exempt. It’s not as though the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which filed at least 409 lawsuits and 165 appeals in federal courts in the last 10 years, needs the money. They claimed a net income of $9 million and net assets of more than $6 million in 2008. Defenders of Wildlife raked in $30.7 million from members’ donations, from reimbursed legal fees and from other sources in 2008. HSUS then had about $162 million in net assets; nevertheless, HSUS received nearly $1.5 million from the federal government for 15 legal cases.
Look at the staffs of these various groups and it’s clear that they’ve mastered the system. The CBD has at least 20 attorneys on staff—about a third of their entire employee roster. Defenders also has a lawyer-heavy staff. Moreover, the EAJA limits attorney fees to $250 per hour, but Budd-Falen says some cases are reimbursed at up to $650 per hour per lawyer.
The catch is that many of these suits are based on technicalities, such as the federal government’s failure to meet a strict filing deadline or to follow a specific—and often unnecessary—procedure. Not surprisingly, the suits have little or nothing to do with actually preserving wildlife or habitat.“Environmental litigation is a big, profitable business, pure and simple,” says Budd-Falen. She says these groups block access to public land and prevent sound timber management on public land in the name of protecting endangered species.
Speaking to a reporter for High Country News in 2009, CBD founder Kieran Suckling said, “At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.
“New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very under-appreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.”
Many of the suits center on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) failure to respond to an endangered species petition in a “timely manner.” That’s one reason groups like the CBD flood the USFWS with endangered-species-listing petitions. Last April, the CBD filed a bulk petition requesting the USFWS to review 404 species from the southeastern United States. WildEarth Guardians submitted two petitions—one seeking protection for 475 plants and animals and another naming 681 species. The USFWS has 90 days to consider each animal listed in the petition and a year to make a final determination to list the species it deems to be endangered or threatened. It’s all but impossible to make those deadlines when the system is overwhelmed, says Budd-Falen, but that’s exactly why these groups file bulk petitions.
Story at link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
